Gaby Hinsliff article in Guardian on Maya Forstater case

[merrymouse]

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/22/maya-forstater-case-about-protected-beliefs-not-trans-rights

Gaby Hinsliff writes:

The ruling explicitly says that it is “quite possible to accept that trans women are women but still argue that there are certain circumstances in which it would be justified to exclude certain trans women”

How would one do that if one can't talk about sex? What language would one use?

How do you talk about the need for sex segregated sports if you can't talk about the sex?

The law currently gives specific examples of situations where it would be legal to exclude all trans women (e.g. from a counselling service for women who have been raped ), and the reason is their biological sex.

I can only conclude that nether Gaby Hinsliff nor the judge are familiar with UK legislation and that both are reading 'Stonelaw' - specifically the bit that pretends that sex based exemptions don't exist.

Ah yes, good old Gaby "well they were flaunting their mobile phones" Hinscliffe. For those times when you want your fun feminism served with a side order of victim blaming.

Think it is the Guardian trying to pour oil and troubled waters - realising, belatedly, that they fuck off a large part of their current readership either way - by asking us all to play nicely and then everything will be ok.

But of course you're right, OP, that the judge's argument was fundamentally illogical - either you can discuss the issues openly or you can't. If you're not allowed to discuss biological sex differences, there is no way of having that conversation.

Oil on troubled waters

it's an almost reasonable article but again misses the point that if transwomen are women and self-ID becomes law then those exceptions she mentions (services used by rape victims or potentially traumatised women eg domestic violence shelters) cannot ever actually exclude anyone born in a male-shaped body.

If transwomen are women there is no basis or grounds for such an exclusion to be imposed and the only ones to be excluded are the ones who consent to that (eg Debbie Hayton).

The ones who do not consent cannot be compelled to reveal their status (it is transphobic to even ask if someone holds a GRC or whether they have had surgery for example, or to differentiate on the basis of how well one "passes") and that's a loophole that males with no gender dysphoria but with a nefarious motive to gain access to such spaces can easily exploit.

But what it means is objections shouldn’t be based on arguing that trans women are men really. The ruling explicitly says that it is “quite possible to accept that trans women are women but still argue that there are certain circumstances in which it would be justified to exclude certain trans women”, for example, from services used by rape victims or potentially traumatised women, just as the law currently allows.

How?

How is it possible to talk about the case of Jessica Yaniv if you can't mention sex?

If I "accept that trans women are women" what am I accepting? What does 'woman' mean in this sentence?

This is what the ruling says:

"Many of concerns that the Claimant has, such as ensuring protection of vulnerable women, do not, in fact, rest on holding a belief that biological sex is immutable. It is quite possible to accept that transwomen are women but still argue that there are certain circumstances in which it would be justified to exclude certain trans women from spaces that are generally only open to women assigned female at birth because of trauma suffered by users of the
space who have been subject to sexual assault. This may be lawful under EqA where it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
"There might be circumstances in which a trans woman is recognised as an [sic] woman, but is not permitted to compete in sport on an entirely equal basis with women assigned female at birth, if that would create an unfair advantage.
"Many of the illustrations the Claimant relies on do not, in fact, rely on the belief that men can never become women; but on the analysis that there may be limited circumstances in which it is relevant that a person is a trans woman or trans man, such as when ensuring appropriate medical care is provided, which takes proper account of trans status.
"I accept that the Claimant genuinely holds the view that sex is biological and immutable. For her it is more that an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available. Even though she has come to this belief recently she is fixed in it, and appears to be becoming more so. She is not prepared to
consider the possibility that her belief may not be correct."

This is a fundamentally idiotic position. If trans women really are women, why would it be acceptable to exclude them in certain circumstances? The only reason for excluding them is because of the belief that trans women are really male.

After her discussion of the legal elements of the case, Gaby goes on to say: "The central idea is that being a woman, trans or not, isn’t a licence to ride roughshod over the needs of others; that it comes with rights, but not infinite ones."

But of course there is no evidence at all that Maya rode "roughshod" over the rights of others. All she did was write some tweets stating that it isn't possible to change sex. Once again Gaby has either fundamentally misunderstood, or has understood but is misrepresenting, what the case is really about.

That’s what Forstater thinks. It might be what a number of other people think

Might be? It’s what most people on Planet Earth think.

Crucially, that doesn’t mean women can now be sacked just for criticising self-identification or for objecting to trans women having automatic access to women’s prisons and domestic violence shelters. But what it means is objections shouldn’t be based on arguing that trans women are men really

What other basis is there for arguing trans women should be excluded from sex segregated spaces? GR as usual, is struggling to string together a coherent argument and her failure to come to terms with the binary absolutes of these conflicting rights is jarring.

Oh, hiya, Gaby. We remember what you wrote about Cologne, so no surprises that you're ready to put the boot it to women again.

This is a fundamentally idiotic position. If trans women really are women, why would it be acceptable to exclude them in certain circumstances? The only reason for excluding them is because of the belief that trans women are really male.

Also, the judge has significantly overstepped his remit by essentially arguing that Maya has no right to have a belief he considers inappropriate - not to take actions he considers inappropriate, the belief itself. He's attempted to justify doing so by arguing previous precedent and whether or not Maya's case meets established case law but that's what the judgement really comes down to - he's decided that she has a belief that's unacceptable, and has written up a judgement based on that. Which is not his job. The fact that the judgement doesn't make sense is down to his own belief not really being logical and him attempting to find a way to justify it.

Maya Forstater doesn’t believe that people can change sex. For her, men are born male and women born female and that’s that; people can identify as another gender but can’t change their biological sex, no matter what surgery they have

Because this is scientifically and factually accurate. It’s not a belief. It’s an understanding of fact. It’s like saying “Maya Forstater understands the Earth is not flat”.

the sticking point was her insistence that a trans woman is still a man even if she holds a GRC confirming her legal status as a woman.

So obviously a trans woman is still male even with a GRC but they are legally fictionally a woman. But as we all know for the sake of the Equality Act, recognition of that person’s sex is perfectly allowed for the sake of exemptions.

The only reason any of us accept that those with GRCs are “women” is because of the risk of deletion with moderation in certain places. That is, it’s fear of policing of language.

Put simply, those seeking the protection of the law can’t ignore the protection it affords others

Oh the irony.

The ruling explicitly says that it is “quite possible to accept that trans women are women but still argue that there are certain circumstances in which it would be justified to exclude certain trans women”

Why should people accept falsehoods just for the sake of keeping their jobs?

I’d say I expected better, but that would be a lie.

but on the analysis that there may be limited circumstances in which it is relevant that a person is a trans woman or trans man, such as when ensuring appropriate medical care is provided, which takes proper account of trans status.

This doesn't make sense because trans status does not imply any form or level of medical transition.

In what way does the Scottish councillor whose name came up during the trial (the one named Gregor who has a beard) need special, "appropriate" medical care on account of their trans status?

Howver many times you read it, you realise that the article doesn't make sense.

Obviously the Guardian appointed GH to try and make the ruling look positive about women as a sex, dont worry girls we will look after you:

... what it means is objections shouldn’t be based on arguing that trans women are men really. The ruling explicitly says that it is “quite possible to accept that trans women are women but still argue that there are certain circumstances in which it would be justified to exclude certain trans women” ...

in other words of course trans women are women, except when we have to admit they were / are known perpetrators of violence against women and then we will say they aren't women.

How stupid do they think we are. Do they not realise just how ridiculous there arguements are.

Trying to bend the thruth to make it substantiate something that doesn't exist in fact.

My Lord that article is a mess. You can hold an opinion that trans women don't belong in women's shelter (oh right), but not on the basis of reality (that trans women are men). In other words, there is no reason for you to hold this opinion for which you would surely be vilified as a transphobe anyway. What a load of goat droppings.

This is a fundamentally idiotic position. If trans women really are women, why would it be acceptable to exclude them in certain circumstances?

This. I don't have a massive amount of respect for Gaby so understand why she doesn't get it.

But why would we accept 'transwomen are women' any more than we would accept the Earth is flat?

This is the crux of the matter. All the twisting of law and language and reality that is happening in order to post justify a lie.

As the saying goes, I wouldn't start from there.

This is a fundamentally idiotic position. If trans women really are women, why would it be acceptable to exclude them in certain circumstances?

That isn’t what the judge said though. What he said was it is possible to exclude certain transwomen.

So he has thrown out all the recent clarifications we have worked for: that these rights are indeed sex based and that it is acceptable in certain circumstances to exclude all of the male sex, and is back to suggesting that it must all be on a case by case basis.

I am correct in thinking we had received official clarification, am I not?

But why would we accept 'transwomen are women' any more than we would accept the Earth is flat?

More importantly, why should a woman lose her job for not accepting this?

The judge wrote (from the article):

“quite possible to accept that trans women are women but still argue that there are certain circumstances in which it would be justified to exclude certain trans women”

What if you don’t want to accept TWAW because, you know, it’s an illogical falsehood? This is supposed to be saying “just be nice when you’re trying to make your point”. But what if someone doesn’t want to lie, doesn’t want to pretend? They shouldn’t lose their job as a result, that’s for sure. What it’s actually saying is “if you’re not prepared to say what we want you to say when making your point, you’d better be VERY careful”. It’s totalitarian.

That's Gaby 'I'm afraid men very much do not have a monopoly on threats of rape and violence' Hinsliff

twitter.com/gabyhinsliff/status/961898478359244801?s=19

The ruling explicitly says that it is “quite possible to accept that trans women are women but still argue that there are certain circumstances in which it would be justified to exclude certain trans women”

In that case, there would also be certain circumstances where it would be justified to exclude certain women. If some transwomen can be excluded in certain circumstances, but it's not appropriate to exclude women in any circumstances, then transwomen are not women.

How does the judge expect doctors to behave to his ruling if a TW turns up at an appointment/a&e?

Jane Clare Jones does such a good job of dissecting the judge's ruling and pointing out the errors:

janeclarejones.com/2019/12/21/bad-judgement-part-1/

Because this is scientifically and factually accurate. It’s not a belief. It’s an understanding of fact. It’s like saying “Maya Forstater understands the Earth is not flat”.

Yes. And it wasn't her argument. Her argument was that her belief was that this understanding of fact matters in the organising of society and creation of public policy.

quite possible to accept that trans women are women but still argue that there are certain circumstances in which it would be justified to exclude certain trans women”, for example, from services used by rape victims or potentially traumatised women, just as the law currently allows.

But that is the law. The judge was applying the law to this case. MF explicitly stated she doesn’t want to follow law - like we all have to. She made a direct challenge to the GRA.

Were you really expecting a different response from this? I’m astonished. Gaby has got it right. This is the starting point for civilised discussion. The judgement made it clear that its fine to discuss the GRA self ID consultation but we can do so respectfully. Isn’t that the same spirit as MN Talk guidelines?

I've been reading the reviews of the Cats film (spoilers - they're not good) and therefore am now picturing "astonished!" delivered with a facial expression full of exaggerated furry wonder.

The ruling explicitly says that it is “quite possible to accept that trans women are women but still argue that there are certain circumstances in which it would be justified to exclude certain trans women”, for example, from services used by rape victims or potentially traumatised women, just as the law currently allows.

But that is the law. The judge was applying the law to this case.

But that's not what the law says, is it? The law currently allows such services to exclude all transwomen as a class. In other words the law actually says that transwomen are not women.